Space Colonization Economics, Part 1
So, Charles Stross has blogged extensively about how space colonization is not economically viable with foreseeable current technology. He makes a number of arguments, one of which is "call me when people colonize the Gobi Desert."
Well, people did colonize the Gobi - we call them "Mongolians." The immediate comeback to this is oil rigs, Antarctica, and the ocean floor. In other words, we might have spartan, not-even-close to self-sustaining outposts in space, but not "colonies." I submit that an understanding of the economics of those environments will produce useful (and not-obvious) results.
Let's talk Antarctica first, and a later post will address oil rigs and the ocean floor. We have colonized Antarctica with research bases. People don't live there permanently, but per the British Antarctic Survey, shifts are from 2 to 33 months long. What does this tell us?
1) Travel time to and from station drives the "colonize" vs. "visit" decision. With travel times of weeks via ship, setting up permanent bases and flying people in made sense.
2) Travel time also drives minimum shift times in a rotation. It would take the better part of a week to fly somebody from Great Britain to Antarctica via any commercial route. With that travel time, 2 months is probably the minimal amount of time you want somebody to be there.
Other useful facts about Antarctic "colonization."
3) Everybody maintains at least one base on the coast, accessible by sea. Bulk goods, such as fuel and food, have to come by sea, not air. In short, shipping costs matter.
4) Nobody ships water to Antarctica. In that regard, the colonists live off the land.
Tomorrow, oil rigs and ocean-floor colonization. Part 3, Grow houses Friday Monday, in part 4, I'll try to tie this together in a unified theory of colonization. ( whole series, including part 5)
Well, people did colonize the Gobi - we call them "Mongolians." The immediate comeback to this is oil rigs, Antarctica, and the ocean floor. In other words, we might have spartan, not-even-close to self-sustaining outposts in space, but not "colonies." I submit that an understanding of the economics of those environments will produce useful (and not-obvious) results.
Let's talk Antarctica first, and a later post will address oil rigs and the ocean floor. We have colonized Antarctica with research bases. People don't live there permanently, but per the British Antarctic Survey, shifts are from 2 to 33 months long. What does this tell us?
1) Travel time to and from station drives the "colonize" vs. "visit" decision. With travel times of weeks via ship, setting up permanent bases and flying people in made sense.
2) Travel time also drives minimum shift times in a rotation. It would take the better part of a week to fly somebody from Great Britain to Antarctica via any commercial route. With that travel time, 2 months is probably the minimal amount of time you want somebody to be there.
Other useful facts about Antarctic "colonization."
3) Everybody maintains at least one base on the coast, accessible by sea. Bulk goods, such as fuel and food, have to come by sea, not air. In short, shipping costs matter.
4) Nobody ships water to Antarctica. In that regard, the colonists live off the land.
Tomorrow, oil rigs and ocean-floor colonization. Part 3, Grow houses Friday Monday, in part 4, I'll try to tie this together in a unified theory of colonization. ( whole series, including part 5)